|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 10:29:24 GMT
So in other words, it's OK if someone regurgitates a known anti-Semitic trope if they feign ignorance and claim their intentions were pure? It's known anti-Semitism? I don't think that was Maxine Peake's intention at all. I'll be honest, I had to read the article twice to find the anti-Semitic claims. My first thought reading the article was bloody Maxine Peake you centrist. To be honest I would argue a large portion of the UK are centrists. Moving towards the centre is how Tony Blair continuously won and David Cameron did the same to make the conservatives more palatable. When both main parties moved back to the far left/far right that’s when we started having problems.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 10:37:20 GMT
Clearly you chose to believe both Maxine and Rebecca acted maliciously and with intent. Clearly you need to read more carefully. That's not anything close to what I said. Please try to engage with the argument I actually made instead of deliberately misrepresenting it. Thank you. Respectfully you opt to pick and chose certain parts of my posts in order to push your own agenda. You claim it doesn’t matter whether Maxine or Rebecca acted maliciously or not - a very dangerous view point as intent is everything. If people aren’t allowed to make mistakes and are condemned for doing things they did not know were mistakes, it’s a very scary world.
|
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 26, 2020 10:38:25 GMT
Have you read anything in this thread? I read the thread also and am asking the same question? Is Maxine Peake getting kicked out of the party now for anti-semetism? Well, there's an abundance of information on this thread that clearly, and in detail, explains this particular situation and the context surrounding it which makes this case different from others. If you can't see it, you either don't want to or maybe haven't read as thoroughly as is needed.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 26, 2020 10:42:45 GMT
RLB has a track record of 'not seeing' blatant anti-Semitism when it is right in front of her.
That is either ignorance or a deliberate choice
Either is wrong in a politician
|
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 26, 2020 10:47:43 GMT
Clearly you need to read more carefully. That's not anything close to what I said. Please try to engage with the argument I actually made instead of deliberately misrepresenting it. Thank you. Respectfully you opt to pick and chose certain parts of my posts in order to push your own agenda. You claim it doesn’t matter whether Maxine or Rebecca acted maliciously or not - a very dangerous view point as intent is everything. If people aren’t allowed to make mistakes and are condemned for doing things they did not know were mistakes, it’s a very scary world. The thing is, RLB read the article, right? She saw that line and either agreed with it or thought it so insignificant that she didn't need to caveat her tweet when posting that Maxine Peake was a “diamond”. Whatever she felt, that was a mistake, given her history and the recent history of the party. She should have known better. She was asked to remove the tweet and apologise. She chose not to remove the tweet, and no apology featured in her follow up tweet, some half-arsed “it wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article”. That's it. And not good enough. At this point, her intent is clear. Starmer has issued a zero-tolerance policy on anti-semitism. With, as I say, RLB's history and the party history, to not even acknowledge or apologise when she was given the chance? She made her bed. Starmer did what he had to do. What else was he supposed to do? We may not be used to it currently - but he showed real leadership.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 26, 2020 10:58:34 GMT
Really? Given how much invective has been (justifiably) aimed at the Labour party over the last few years for the previous leader's unmitigated failure to deal with the issue of anti-Semitism, "she was just re-tweeting an article featuring her constituent condemning the government" doesn't cut it. Ms. Long-Bailey should have read the article first, should have noticed the VERY obvious dog-whistle (which does Ms. Peake absolutely no credit either, by the way), and should have realised that re-tweeting (and therefore endorsing) an interview with a prominent Labour supporter which contains a thuddingly obvious piece of anti-Semitism would inevitably reopen a very ugly conversation. That she DIDN'T, I'm afraid, tells us a great deal about her intelligence, and that's putting it very kindly. There's no excuse. And THEN, instead of acknowledging the mistake, deleting the tweet, firmly distancing herself from the offensive content in the article, and offering an unreserved apology, Ms. Long-Bailey doubled down and tried to justify herself. At that point, she had to go - and since this is an issue that has already done the party enormous damage, she had to go immediately. Starmer didn't have any choice. PR stunt? Not in the way you suggest. I would not be at all surprised if Starmer gave her the job anticipating that before too long he'd have to fire her - but as I said somewhere else, in order to be seen to be trying to build bridges, he had to offer her a prominent role. This was an easily-avoidable screwup, and she didn't avoid it. It's entirely her own fault. You assume she is consciously promoting falsehoods but the truth still remains the article she shared clearly states that Maxine’s claims were false and that they were incorrect. This isn’t hidden away at the bottom of the article, but directly next to Maxine’s quote. I’m by no means a fan of RLB and have zero idea how she came second in the labour leadership, and as I said in my first post, she should have known better. But in context, Maxine’s one comment was directly counteracted by the journalist in the article and Maxine makes a lot of other comments worth reading. It isn’t an article going off on a tirade against Israel, but she is hyper critical of the UK government and as a member of the opposition, I can believe Rebecca wanting to get that criticism out there. Just to note, the article itself was updated after publication - when RLB shared it, it didn't include the clarification that the claims were incorrect. It actually included a quote from the Amnesty USA blogpost to support the comment. At the time it was initially published, it was uncritically supporting the conspiracy theory, and was only changed after RLB amplified it because of the criticism. Alas, this sort of sneaky post-publication correction is all too common in the news media - there'll be a timestamp noting that the article was updated somewhere on the page, but not telling you exactly what was changed is all too common.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 11:13:09 GMT
Respectfully you opt to pick and chose certain parts of my posts in order to push your own agenda. You claim it doesn’t matter whether Maxine or Rebecca acted maliciously or not - a very dangerous view point as intent is everything. If people aren’t allowed to make mistakes and are condemned for doing things they did not know were mistakes, it’s a very scary world. The thing is, RLB read the article, right? She saw that line and either agreed with it or thought it so insignificant that she didn't need to caveat her tweet when posting that Maxine Peake was a “diamond”. Whatever she felt, that was a mistake, given her history and the recent history of the party. She should have known better. She was asked to remove the tweet and apologise. She chose not to remove the tweet, and no apology featured in her follow up tweet, some half-arsed “it wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article”. That's it. And not good enough. At this point, her intent is clear. Starmer has issued a zero-tolerance policy on anti-semitism. With, as I say, RLB's history and the party history, to not even acknowledge or apologise when she was given the chance? She made her bed. Starmer did what he had to do. What else was he supposed to do? We may not be used to it currently - but he showed real leadership. I never said I excuse her, but that I accepted her explanation. The article in question is so much more than that one comment within it - a comment the journalist confirms in the very next sentence is incorrect. I don’t disagree with anything that has happened as a result of all this and as I said, I think Starmer has turned this into an absolute win for himself politically - got rid of a Corbynist, his biggest competition to his leadership and shown the world he meant business when it comes to anti-Seminism. I don’t fault him at all. All I said in my original post is that I believe Rebecca’s explanation for re-tweeting the article. I stand by that and have since said that I don’t believe Maxine or Rebecca acted with any sort of malice and it was simply a case of using an incorrect fact - a fact confirmed as incorrect by the journalist in very next sentence at the point of publication. Of course it wasn’t acceptable to some users here that I accept Rebecca’s explanation which is a shame, because I’m actually not a fan of her at all.
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 11:13:28 GMT
Respectfully you opt to pick and chose certain parts of my posts in order to push your own agenda. No, I quote selectively to save space. Moving on... You claim it doesn’t matter whether Maxine or Rebecca acted maliciously or not - a very dangerous view point as intent is everything. If people aren’t allowed to make mistakes and are condemned for doing things they did not know were mistakes, it’s a very scary world. That's not quite what I said either. The point - and it really isn't difficult unless you're choosing not to understand it - is that the conversation surrounding anti-Semitism within and around the Labour Party has been so ugly and so damaging that anybody with links to the party needs to be very careful indeed when they talk about anything referencing Israel or Judaism or Jewish people. On THIS subject, more than just about any other, anybody connected to the Labour Party needs to be absolutely sure of what they're saying before they say it. If you're Maxine Peake, that means not casually lobbing a known anti-Semitic trope into a conversation with an interviewer without fact-checking the assertion you're making first - and yes, linking violence against black people to Israel is a known anti-Semitic trope. If you're Rebecca Long-Bailey, that means not retweeting (and therefore holding up for approval) an interview in which a famous constituent with strong links to the Labour Party makes an unfounded assertion that can justifiably be construed as anti-Semitic. It also means that when you're facing criticism for retweeting such an article, you delete the tweet, distance yourself from the problematic comments in the piece, and immediately offer an unreserved apology instead of doubling down and trying to justify yourself. This is an area where everybody connected to the Labour Party needs to be hyper-vigilant. I don't think either Ms. Peake or Ms. Long-Bailey consciously acted maliciously. I do believe Ms. Peake's willingness to parrot that particular line without fact-checking it reveals something about her unconscious prejudices, and for Ms. Long-Bailey to retweet it and then not immediately offer a grovelling apology when challenged about it, in the context of the party's very, very ugly ongoing conversation about anti-Semitism, is simply breathtakingly, jaw-droppingly, astonishingly STUPID. This isn't "a mistake". This is an issue that has done the party a huge amount of damage, and the party's MPs - especially the ones sitting in the shadow cabinet - have a responsibility to make sure it doesn't do any more. And if you seriously think it's "scary" that MPs are - oops - not allowed to RETWEET SOMETHING RACIST without facing consequences for it, it's probably time to take a long, hard look at your own prejudices.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 11:25:48 GMT
I read the thread also and am asking the same question? Is Maxine Peake getting kicked out of the party now for anti-semetism? Well, there's an abundance of information on this thread that clearly, and in detail, explains this particular situation and the context surrounding it which makes this case different from others. If you can't see it, you either don't want to or maybe haven't read as thoroughly as is needed. I want the information, I want more than just here. Following up SF's piece elsewhere. Give me the pertinent bits. I'm not there yet.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 11:32:42 GMT
It's known anti-Semitism? I don't think that was Maxine Peake's intention at all. I'll be honest, I had to read the article twice to find the anti-Semitic claims. My first thought reading the article was bloody Maxine Peake you centrist. To be honest I would argue a large portion of the UK are centrists. Moving towards the centre is how Tony Blair continuously won and David Cameron did the same to make the conservatives more palatable. When both main parties moved back to the far left/far right that’s when we started having problems. David Cameron wasn't a centrist? What policy did I miss that made him so? Being on the left of Boris Johnson doesn't make you a centrist
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 11:37:35 GMT
]And if you seriously think it's "scary" that MPs are - oops - not allowed to SAY SOMETHING RACIST without facing consequences for it, it's probably time to take a long, hard look at your own prejudices. I never said there was no consequences. I never once said Starmer did anything wrong in how he handed this. All I ever did was say that I accept Rebecca’s explanation, a comment you took issue with. What is very scary is how you reject my acceptance of her explanation and have turned it around into suggesting I need to look at my own prejudices, suggesting publicly I am supporting the idea MPs are allowed to be racist. You completely took issue with the fact I accept Rebecca’s explanation. I never defended her, said she was in the right or claimed that this is all a mountain out of a mole hill. But you have jumped on it, ran with it and completely used it to push your own agenda. Where does the conversation end? Am I supposed to tell you she is evil? That she should be cancelled? Am I supposed to withdraw acceptance of her explanation to appease you? Because I won’t. I’ve read the article, read her explanation and thought it a case of ‘fair enough’. She will learn from this and hopefully learn nothing good ever comes from using Twitter (something I do think is evil and needs cancelling).
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 11:41:35 GMT
Because I won’t. I’ve read the article, read her explanation and thought it a case of ‘fair enough’. Precisely. And that, I'm afraid, is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 11:42:39 GMT
To be honest I would argue a large portion of the UK are centrists. Moving towards the centre is how Tony Blair continuously won and David Cameron did the same to make the conservatives more palatable. When both main parties moved back to the far left/far right that’s when we started having problems. David Cameron wasn't a centrist? What policy did I miss that made him so? Being on the left of Boris Johnson doesn't make you a centrist Cameron absolutely moved the conservatives towards the centre. I’m not saying he or Blair moved directly into the middle, but they both moved towards it in order to steal votes from the other party - but they were both party men and not centrists themselves. They just worked out a way of winning votes and that was to condense their views so that more people could agree with them and take the win. Although retrospectively it feels redundant to ever say Cameron had a real win, the mess he created.
|
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 26, 2020 11:50:00 GMT
Well, there's an abundance of information on this thread that clearly, and in detail, explains this particular situation and the context surrounding it which makes this case different from others. If you can't see it, you either don't want to or maybe haven't read as thoroughly as is needed. I want the information, I want more than just here. Following up SF's piece elsewhere. Give me the pertinent bits. I'm not there yet. That is appreciated, I assure you. The thing is, the pertinent bits aren't necessarily little nuggets of information, easily digested. This is a very nuanced situation that does require a degree of further reading and understanding. On the previous page, I posted a thread in full about how this situation may not seem anti-Semitic on the face of it, but a deeper context is needed if you wish to understand why it is. Here's the thread on twitter: The original Independent interview included a link to an “Amnesty International report” about Israeli Police officers teaching US polices officers techniques that were used in the murder of George Floyd. That reference has since been removed from the Independent interview. Amnesty made a statement here: www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/amnesty-international-we-never-reported-neck-kneeling-taught-israelis-usThis thread explains how the “report” that the Independent originally linked to should not be used as some sort of official source: This is a thread (if a little flippant) on examples of how wording and phrasing is used that makes some criticisms *not* anti-Semitic and some criticisms anti-Semitic: This is an article I’ve seen today regarding the non-apology and sacking of RLB. Obviously this is not set in stone that this report is the gospel on what happened, but it's further reading none-the-less: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey_uk_5ef50f91c5b6acab283efcb2?5hx&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL0xWVzdaT2VFZGo_YW1wPTE&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADxKQTZQUY1aUIzTjiEWDLr-FxhgoEm4Y1W0IFlZVLeioWhAmmlZ9u0IP1mciLa__ncXL8UItJMwSUrn_j-ph-F_yulWDOh6Xbt45Z5xHPBceuehGlqUwnAGUiTEuHmiOOPe3Mzu5fsmNaKC8VJ319nQ6cCClkuTr3OEVtFCN0Rn
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 11:50:10 GMT
David Cameron wasn't a centrist? What policy did I miss that made him so? Being on the left of Boris Johnson doesn't make you a centrist Cameron absolutely moved the conservatives towards the centre. I’m not saying he or Blair moved directly into the middle, but they both moved towards it in order to steal votes from the other party - but they were both party men and not centrists themselves. They just worked out a way of winning votes and that was to condense their views so that more people could agree with them and take the win. Although retrospectively it feels redundant to ever say Cameron had a real win, the mess he created. Claiming the centre ground and having centrist policies are different things though. Different times I know but Cameron did things Thatcher would only dream of doing. Not sure any policy decisions bear out a centrist politician.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 11:52:40 GMT
First sentence says why I feel it is not as cut and dried as you are previously saying. It's not anti-Semitic to attack Israel
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 12:03:20 GMT
First sentence says why I feel it is not as cut and dried as you are previously saying. It's not anti-Semitic to attack Israel See it is the jump from a to b that is so hard to prove Maxine Peake was being anti-Semitic in Sara Gibbs piece and then to start talking about continued far right attacks over many years. Still not with Maxine Peake being anti-Semitic. Pretty sure she was talking about the Israeli state. Going onto the second links...
|
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 26, 2020 12:04:49 GMT
The thing is, RLB read the article, right? She saw that line and either agreed with it or thought it so insignificant that she didn't need to caveat her tweet when posting that Maxine Peake was a “diamond”. Whatever she felt, that was a mistake, given her history and the recent history of the party. She should have known better. She was asked to remove the tweet and apologise. She chose not to remove the tweet, and no apology featured in her follow up tweet, some half-arsed “it wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article”. That's it. And not good enough. At this point, her intent is clear. Starmer has issued a zero-tolerance policy on anti-semitism. With, as I say, RLB's history and the party history, to not even acknowledge or apologise when she was given the chance? She made her bed. Starmer did what he had to do. What else was he supposed to do? We may not be used to it currently - but he showed real leadership. I never said I excuse her, but that I accepted her explanation. The article in question is so much more than that one comment within it - a comment the journalist confirms in the very next sentence is incorrect. I don’t disagree with anything that has happened as a result of all this and as I said, I think Starmer has turned this into an absolute win for himself politically - got rid of a Corbynist, his biggest competition to his leadership and shown the world he meant business when it comes to anti-Seminism. I don’t fault him at all. All I said in my original post is that I believe Rebecca’s explanation for re-tweeting the article. I stand by that and have since said that I don’t believe Maxine or Rebecca acted with any sort of malice and it was simply a case of using an incorrect fact - a fact confirmed as incorrect by the journalist in very next sentence at the point of publication. Of course it wasn’t acceptable to some users here that I accept Rebecca’s explanation which is a shame, because I’m actually not a fan of her at all. But what is her explanation, exactly? She retweeted the article but later clarified that “it wasn't intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article”? Is that it? After 4 years of the Labour Party being embroiled in anti-semitism rows and RLB's previous history of being blind to anti-Semitic comments, that is why I don't buy it at all. Her thread explains how she was asked to remove the tweets but she decided not to. This article delves a little deeper into RLB's behavior on this issue and Starmer's actions: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey_uk_5ef50f91c5b6acab283efcb2?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANzG1vxVIT89zoek4kyeMv3Jp8GXEbwpHX5IXOj9NK7FzA0BY1rjurm2zfiWFmUQ5csoHHYwHoac8giiHyXPpTXTYXv8welQSWsyZNzFNJ3TrNCQvZkJfPGJd4QyeR19mqLcIs-Va6lK562ovDCwN1wHrUpBemzJSs3WLkr0UT-DI completely understand and appreciate that you agree with the actions taken and I completely understand you are not disputing the issue at all, but from where I’m standing I just can't buy her “explanation”. She was either ignorant to it or believed it. Neither is good enough for a politician. On the point of the Independent correcting the false statement at the point of publication, I’m afraid that just isn't true. The next sentence of the original article, they reference a “2016 Amnesty International report” (I’ve posted a thread above why that article should not be used an as official source), but once the criticism emerged, it was swiftly removed to whatever it says now about no tactic about putting pressure on the neck or airway.
|
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 26, 2020 12:10:23 GMT
First sentence says why I feel it is not as cut and dried as you are previously saying. It's not anti-Semitic to attack Israel But that's the thing. People think they're making an argument with that statement. You're not. No one is saying attacking Israel is anti-Semitic (one of the threads I posted which you will get to explains this). Posting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Israeli police teaching US police the specific techniques used to murder George Floyd, whilst playing on anti-Semitic tropes that Jews are to blame for disasters, but using the Israeli police as a scapegoat to perpetuate those rumors is not ok. These things are too important to just throw into an article and be wrong about and just say “oops, sorry”. Retweeting those articles with no caveat or apology is also not ok.
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 12:14:40 GMT
Meanwhile, on whatever planet these people live on:
It's as if certain members of the Labour Party - hi, Jeremy! - are grimly determined NOT to learn anything from the last four or five years.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 12:17:07 GMT
First sentence says why I feel it is not as cut and dried as you are previously saying. It's not anti-Semitic to attack Israel But that's the thing. People think they're making an argument with that statement. You're not. No one is saying attacking Israel is anti-Semitic (one of the threads I posted which you will get to explains this). Posting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Israeli police teaching US police the specific techniques used to murder George Floyd, whilst playing on anti-Semitic tropes that Jews are to blame for disasters, but using the Israeli police as a scapegoat to perpetuate those rumors is not ok. These things are too important to just throw into an article and be wrong about and just say “oops, sorry”. Retweeting those articles with no caveat or apology is also not ok. Didn't like the second link, that was why article was false. I want why it is anti-Semitic, looking forward to the third article. Never said I would have used that article, used it in the piece she wrote or of any need to bring Israel into that discussion. But Sarah Gibbs uses that phrase. It's really not anti-Semitic to attack Israel. Anyway, onto post 3 now. Think this is the one I want.
|
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 26, 2020 12:23:16 GMT
But that's the thing. People think they're making an argument with that statement. You're not. No one is saying attacking Israel is anti-Semitic (one of the threads I posted which you will get to explains this). Posting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Israeli police teaching US police the specific techniques used to murder George Floyd, whilst playing on anti-Semitic tropes that Jews are to blame for disasters, but using the Israeli police as a scapegoat to perpetuate those rumors is not ok. These things are too important to just throw into an article and be wrong about and just say “oops, sorry”. Retweeting those articles with no caveat or apology is also not ok. Didn't like the second link, that was why article was false. I want why it is anti-Semitic, looking forward to the third article. Never said I would have used that article, used it in the piece she wrote or of any need to bring Israel into that discussion. But Sarah Gibbs uses that phrase. It's really not anti-Semitic to attack Israel. Anyway, onto post 3 now. Think this is the one I want. I hope that thread on the 2016 Amnesty article helps. May I suggest this paragraph from the second link which you didn’t like, really does get to the nub of the anti-semitism point: “Those who find this allegation anti-Semitic do not dispute that international police forces share training in a manner of deep concern to international human rights watchdogs. What they do object to is the singling out of Israel in this allegation, when there is nothing to suggest that Israel played any greater part in Floyd’s death than the many other countries that share training with the US, and which also use aggressive restraining techniques. Why is the tragic killing of a black man at the hands of the police, in a country with a long history of racial discrimination and excessive force in policing, now being blamed on the world’s only Jewish-majority state, they ask?”
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 26, 2020 12:25:54 GMT
I stand by that and have since said that I don’t believe Maxine or Rebecca acted with any sort of malice and it was simply a case of using an incorrect fact - a fact confirmed as incorrect by the journalist in very next sentence at the point of publication. Has @kevinuk got me on ignore? :-( I explained that this was not the case just before he posted this. There's handy before/after screenshots in this tweet You can see how the original version of the article gives credence to the conspiracy theory despite including a denial 'Though a spokesperson...denied this, ....Amnesty International said that....'. Conspiracy theorism relies on official denials being dismissed and a belief that the organisation at the centre of a conspiracy is lying to cover up the truth. The second version is the one that actually states that her statement is incorrect, and removed any suggestion that the spokesperson is not telling the truth.
|
|
1,848 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jun 26, 2020 12:41:54 GMT
‘there is nothing to suggest that Israel played any greater part in Floyd’s death than the many other countries that share training with the US” That is the nub of the issue, many Countries share ‘best’ Policing methods and singling out Israel is why Starmer was right to act decisively. Singling out Israel perpetuates the ant-Semitic trope of the malign Jewish influence / conspiracy in World affairs with the subtext of being particularly severe in light of the policing methods used in Palestine, quoting the training which took place in Scotland would not have the same inference. www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/nyregion/us-police-leaders-visiting-scotland-get-lessons-on-avoiding-deadly-force.htmlThere are many areas where the State of Israel can rightly be criticised this is not one of them, poor judgement by both parties for which Maxine now knowing the truth has apologised and Rebecca has still to do. It is possible to criticise the State of Israel in the Labour Party if done properly. www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2020/06/26/long-bailey-sacking-shows-starmer-is-serious-about-winning
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 26, 2020 13:54:13 GMT
Quite a lot of people in this debate manage to justify the unjustifiable if it's done by the side they support.
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 13:59:05 GMT
Quite a lot of people in this debate manage to justify the unjustifiable if it's done by the side they support.
That's a rather offensive assertion. Would you like to try to back it up with actual evidence?
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 26, 2020 14:05:38 GMT
Quite a lot of people in this debate manage to justify the unjustifiable if it's done by the side they support.
That's a rather offensive assertion. Would you like to try to back it up with actual evidence?
Well plenty of people manage to support Anexation when on most other issues they would not support flagrant breaches of international law equally many seek to minimise the actions of hamas.
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 14:14:29 GMT
That's a rather offensive assertion. Would you like to try to back it up with actual evidence?
Well plenty of people manage to support Anexation when on most other issues they would not support flagrant breaches of international law equally many seek to minimise the actions of hamas.
Has anybody in this conversation done either of those things?
I'll give you a hint: the answer is 'no', and you owe us all an apology.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 14:45:13 GMT
I think it’s quite possible basdfg meant ”in this debate” to take in the general political debate around anti-Semitism - not just this one in particular!
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 15:21:23 GMT
I think it’s quite possible basdfg meant ”in this debate” to take in the general political debate around anti-Semitism - not just this one in particular! If that's the case, perhaps basdfg might have chosen his/her words a little more carefully.
|
|